Is there such a thing as New Atheism?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We are talking about a future from the point of view of an omni god here, in what way do individual perceptions of past, present and future have any bearing?

So I take it you share my reservations about God ever making a prediction as opposed to knowledge through being everywhere at any point.

As for evidence of the future goes, yes, (for example) there is very good evidence that the next perihelion of Halley's Comet will be on 28th July 2061, from the point of view of humans on Earth.

And when was, or where can this event be, observed?

Note that I started the section with "Even if we ignore the evidence that there is no real present...". More generally, you seem to be confusing individual observers in space-time with your supposed omni god.

Hardly since I am not the one claiming God makes prediction or needs to. I am the one who has repeatedly referred to God as being Omnipresent. If you think that is confusing individual observers in space time with God then you are obviously mistaken.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And of course if God is omnipresent theories of time only apply to us who live in the universe.

[Stranger]

And of course if God is omnipresent theories of time only apply to us who live in the universe.

Hardly since I am not the one claiming God makes prediction or needs to. I am the one who has repeatedly referred to God as being Omnipresent. If you think that is confusing individual observers in space time with God then you are obviously mistaken.

Actually you are the one who was trying to avoid the contradictions of omniscience and omnipotence by suggesting that the future doesn't exist from the point of view of a god. As is often the case, you seem to have lost track of your own argument...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually you are the one who was trying to avoid the contradictions of omniscience and omnipotence by suggesting that the future doesn't exist from the point of view of a god. As is often the case, you seem to have lost track of your own argument...

I have just said that God isn't subject to theories of time due to omnipresence and the future not existing is one theory and support for that theory is that you cannot show me any actual measurement or observations from our NEXT encounter with Halley's Comet.

I'm afraid Jeremy has God making perfect prediction rather than actual knowledge of everything which places God at the beginning of time and you for some reason best known to your self are Wittering about both there being no absolute future while later mentioning the future several times. What future is that for goodness sake?


Do you know what 'Baked in' means in the context of the Omni's argument?

[Stranger]

I'm afraid Jeremy has God making perfect prediction rather than actual knowledge of everything which places God at the beginning of time and you for some reason best known to your self are Wittering about both there being no absolute future while later mentioning the future several times. What future is that for goodness sake?

Do you not grasp the idea of different arguments based on different premises?

If you accept what we know from the evidence we have, if god is omnipresent, it must also exist at all times, which nullifies any argument about the future not existing from its point of view.

If, on the other hand, you ignore what current science tells us about time and assume there is some concept of a future that doesn't exist even from a god's point of view (as you and Steve have), you get right back to what I said at the end of post #86.

[jeremyp]

Then if it is not open to interpretation it has a single interpretation which you are Obviously capable of providing.

And so are you because it is a well known idiom.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you not grasp the idea of different arguments based on different premises?

If you accept what we know from the evidence we have, if god is omnipresent, it must also exist at all times, which nullifies any argument about the future not existing from its point of view.

If, on the other hand, you ignore what current science tells us about time and assume there is some concept of a future that doesn't exist even from a god's point of view (as you and Steve have), you get right back to what I said at the end of post #86.

This post seems to have been written in ignorance of reply#41 and reply#83

Here are the salient points:

It is my belief that

1: It is God who decides if there is a future

2: If existence can only be attributed to what has been and what is now, then the idea of God's omniscience being dependent on ''knowing the future'' is not logical.

3: If there is a future then God, by dint of OMNIPRESENCE, would know the future rather than predict the future which itself would be at most a supremely informed opinion made in ''a present''.


4: It might seem that God has at least suggested a bit of a future. Due to omnipresence he would be in any future.

and

There is no evidence of the future....we are assuming, hoping, going by past experience, believing the prophets that there is one...that's just the way it works. Have you not read Popper?

[jeremyp]

I'm afraid Jeremy has God making perfect prediction rather than actual knowledge of everything

There’s not really any substantive difference except in Vlad-land.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And so are you because it is a well known idiom.

I had to look it up and was greeted with references to cooking, Bake Off and computer science so it seems like you might have a classic case of what you do for a living being the be all and end all of life for everyone.....and even it's use doesn't seem to transfer to the God I worship which brings me back to my beef about people like yersel' saddling religion with God's you've concocted yersels'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There’s not really any substantive difference except in Vlad-land.

I'm afraid your limited thinking can't see the subtleties of the difference.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There’s not really any substantive difference except in Vlad-land.

Really? Thesaurus time for you Jezzer

prediction
[prɪˈdɪkʃ(ə)n]

NOUN
a thing predicted; a forecast.
"a prediction that economic growth would resume"
synonyms
forecast · prophecy · divination · prognosis · prognostication · augury · bet · projection · conjecture · guess · vaticination · prognostic · auspication

[jeremyp]

I had to look it up

Yeah, that’s a lie.

the God I worship'

It never ceases to amaze me how happy Christians are to tell me what the God they worship is not. However it’s harder to elicit an explanation of what the god they worship is than it is to nail a bland mange to the wall.

[jeremyp]

Really? Thesaurus time for you Jezzer

prediction
[prɪˈdɪkʃ(ə)n]

NOUN
a thing predicted; a forecast.
"a prediction that economic growth would resume"
synonyms
forecast · prophecy · divination · prognosis · prognostication · augury · bet · projection · conjecture · guess · vaticination · prognostic · auspication

That’s human definitions. However, we are talking about a being that has perfect knowledge of the World and the laws that  govern it (omniscience) and a perfect ability to calculate the evolution of the said World given the said laws (omnipotence).

If you want to claim God is only as good at predicting the future as a weather forecaster, I’m fine with that. However, you then need to drop the omniscience or the omnipotence claims.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That’s human definitions. However, we are talking about a being that has perfect knowledge of the World and the laws that  govern it (omniscience) and a perfect ability to calculate the evolution of the said World given the said laws (omnipotence).

If you want to claim God is only as good at predicting the future as a weather forecaster, I’m fine with that. However, you then need to drop the omniscience or the omnipotence claims.

Jeremy it was you who for some reason introduced the idea of prediction a word you claim is virtually synonymous with knowledge....and it ain't.


I'm good with omniscience, less good with the omnipotence bit because of the stone that cannot be lifted business and little else I have to say, I'm Perfectly Good with the idea that the omnis are more of philosophical interest and Anselm kind of has it when he refers to God as the the greatest or most or highest.


A philosopher might be all at sea with God's omnibenevolence not because God isn't but it's hard to agree what that might even look like.

.
With regard to the physical Universe though there are fewer if any objections to the 3 Omnis of God.

[Stranger]

This post seems to have been written in ignorance of reply#41 and reply#83

No my points stand despite all that waffle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No my points stand despite all that waffle.

Not your point of trying to hold me to commitment to a no future model.


Your points about time might be right but are IMV non sequitur to the discussion.


As for God keeping himself in the dark why should he be doing that....he might be keeping us in the dark about the future...but why keep himself in the dark?


He would know about something that seemed random because he is present where everyone of these occurences takes place and because he is present he knows....so that could explain why terms like omnipresence and omniscience could crop up in discussions like these.


I think you are falling into Jeremy's error of confusing prediction with knowledge.

[Stranger]

Not your point of trying to hold me to commitment to a no future model.

I wasn't trying to hold you to any model, I was pointing out that whether you think the future exists or not doesn't really make much difference.

Your points about time might be right but are IMV non sequitur to the discussion.

You really should learn what non sequitur means.

As for God keeping himself in the dark why should he be doing that....he might be keeping us in the dark about the future...but why keep himself in the dark.

Fuck knows - I was just running through the logical possibilities.

He would know about something that seemed random because he is present where everyone of these occurences takes place and because he is present he knows....so that could explain why terms like omnipresence and omniscience could crop up in discussions like these.

Again, I was just going through the possibilities; if the future doesn't exist, an omnipotent god could (I assume) arrange for some things to happen randomly in such a way that even it couldn't know the outcome. That does seem to contradict omniscience, however.

I think you are falling into Jeremy's error of confusing prediction with knowledge.

Perfect prediction of the future is knowledge of the future.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I wasn't trying to hold you to any model, I was pointing out that whether you think the future exists or not doesn't really make much difference.

You really should learn what non sequitur means.

Fuck knows - I was just running through the logical possibilities.

Again, I was just going through the possibilities; if the future doesn't exist, an omnipotent god could (I assume) arrange for some things to happen randomly in such a way that even it couldn't know the outcome. That does seem to contradict omniscience, however.

Perfect prediction of the future is knowledge of the future.

Like your Lord and Master Lawrence Krauss, you are changing definitions to suit.

Perfect prediction is an act on a timeline about something in the future. It is not knowledge. Since God has knowledge he does not even need prediction. Is omnipredictive one of the omnis? No it never makes the cut.

Game over as you and Jeremy have exposed the atheist conceit.

[Stranger]

Like your Lord and Master Lawrence Krauss...

- yawn -

...you are changing definitions to suit.

Perfect prediction is an act on a timeline about something in the future. It is not knowledge.

Nonsense. Propositional knowledge [sense 1.3] is usually defined as true, justified belief. If a god is capable of making perfect predictions, then its predictions will be true, it will believe them, and will have adequate justification for that belief. Hence, it will be knowledge.

QED.

Game over as you and Jeremy have exposed the atheist conceit.

- yawn -

[Walt Zingmatilder]

- yawn -

Nonsense. Propositional knowledge [sense 1.3] is usually defined as true, justified belief. If a god is capable of making perfect predictions, then its predictions will be true, it will believe them, and will have adequate justification for that belief. Hence, it will be knowledge.

QED.


- yawn -

You've palpably changed the definition of prediction. We needn't go into your straw clutching with the definition of knowledge.


I doubt if a Christian shares your definition of omniscience where knowledge equals prediction anyway so that rather underlines that an atheist conception of the 3 Omnis is not the Christian conception....in fact it ignores several fundemental Christian beliefs....and therefore we can conclude a massive straw man argument on the part of atheists in the form of the 3 Omnis.


Bad luck sir.

[Stranger]

You've palpably changed the definition of prediction.

Utter drivel. What do you think I've changed about it?

We needn't go into your straw clutching with the definition of knowledge.

I note that you have made no attempt to point out why you think I'm wrong...       

I doubt if a Christian shares your definition of omniscience where knowledge equals prediction anyway so that rather underlines that an atheist conception of the 3 Omnis is not the Christian conception...

I was only responding to you (and Steve) claiming that the future doesn't exist and its relevance to omniscience. My argument is merely that it doesn't make much difference. I was not putting forward an atheist view of omniscience, just going through the possibilities.

in fact it ignores several fundemental Christian beliefs....and therefore we can conclude a massive straw man argument on the part of atheists in the form of the 3 Omnis.

More drivel. Unless you are saying that no Christians at all take a literal view of the omnis (which would be very silly), then the problems pointed out cannot be straw man arguments.

Bad luck sir.

* yawn *

[Walt Zingmatilder]

More drivel. Unless you are saying that no Christians at all take a literal view of the omnis (which would be very silly), then the problems pointed out cannot be straw man arguments.

But it seems what you mean by Omniscience is omniprediction.

[Stranger]

But it seems what you mean by Omniscience is omniprediction.

Oh FFS Vlad, how many more times do I need to say that I'm just going through the possibilities? Omniscience just means the state of knowing everything.

If you try to avoid some of the contradictions involved in combining that with omnipotence by saying the future doesn't exist, then it doesn't really make much difference because you end up with perfect prediction, which is perfect knowledge of the future, for the reasons I have pointed out.

I don't think that that is what most Christians mean by omniscience, I've just been addressing a particular scenario the you and Steve brought up. It wasn't my idea that the future doesn't exist...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh FFS Vlad, how many more times do I need to say that I'm just going through the possibilities? Omniscience just means the state of knowing everything.

If you try to avoid some of the contradictions involved in combining that with omnipotence by saying the future doesn't exist, then it doesn't really make much difference because you end up with perfect prediction, which is perfect knowledge of the future, for the reasons I have pointed out.

I don't think that that is what most Christians mean by omniscience, I've just been addressing a particular scenario the you and Steve brought up. It wasn't my idea that the future doesn't exist...

Well I am a Christian and when some atheists who start going on about the 3 omnis that is an issue of their own devising. It is apparent when Christians hear atheist banging on about it they meet it with an eh. Atheists are then wont to go on about how Christians don't understand it and you have demonstrated that actually it's some atheists who don't understand terms like omniscience and omnipresence.
I guess what I'm saying is the atheist arguments over omni don't really stand up to close scrutiny.

A return to the drawing board is needed and the arguments need to be thought through since the model of God used is not accurately Christianand definitions are waffty.

[Stranger]

...you have demonstrated that actually it's some atheists who don't understand terms like omniscience and omnipresence.

Since all I have done is point out the logical consequences of a view about time and omniscience that you and Steve brought up, I can't have demonstrated anything of the sort.

Well I am a Christian and when some atheists who start going on about the 3 omnis that is an issue of their own devising. It is apparent when Christians hear atheist banging on about it they meet it with an eh. Atheists are then wont to go on about how Christians don't understand it and you have demonstrated that actually it's some atheists who don't understand terms like omniscience and omnipresence.
I guess what I'm saying is the atheist arguments over omni don't really stand up to close scrutiny.

A return to the drawing board is needed and the arguments need to be thought through since the model of God used is not accurately Christianand definitions are waffty.

Tell you what Vlad, why don't you post "the Christian" definitions of the omnis and "the Christian" "model of god" and we can see what arguments apply or otherwise.

Alternatively, you could post an example atheist argument and then show that is based on a view that no Christians whatsoever believe.

As things stand, you are just making baseless assertions about who believes what and who understands what.